I just whipped up a quick demo here. Please excuse the glitch a minute or so in. Apparently recording a screen movie while doing this caused a momentary issue. I doubt anyone will find this informative. UPDATE: I did the same thing in PrCC just to be fair... posted below

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.

[Aindreas Gallagher]"For an fcpx demo on a set of different 4k formats that's a really impressive demo Charlie. That's what's going on there right?"

lol, of course not. Was the first bit of that demo 4k material? It wasn't specified. Either way, I don't have a Mac Pro. I think the point of the PrCC demo was that the Mac Pro is a great computer and Pr CC is optimized to take advantage of it. Did I mention I like PrCC? I'm a subscriber. :-)

I honestly had no idea what would happen when I tried to emulate that first "live interaction" part. I was surprised it worked at all. 1080p H264 isn't always fun to work with, and it worked pretty well, all things considered. It played back much better when I wasn't recording a screen movie at the same time too. :-)

FWIW, I have seen a live demo of FCP X on a Mac Pro playing 16 angles of mixed format 4k in real time with some simple transitions/effects applied on the fly and output to a 4k projector. I'm sure that Avid will have an impressive demo running on the MP soon as well. I want one. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

Both FCPX and PP seem to slow down very quickly there. More so than I'd expect. I wonder though how hard they are working your system to achieve these results?

I don't have a mac to try this on but have you ever monitored RAM, CPU usage and computer temperature when using these two? I did some very non scientific tests on my PC running the same footage through PP5.5 and Edius. I wasn't surprised that PP was chocking on footage Edius happily played at full speed but I was surprised that PP was running my computer massively harder. I forget exact numbers but it was using a lot more ram, a lot more CPU (at least a few full cores worth) and the internal temperature of the computer was significantly higher. All while giving me blocky playback.

I've never used Premiere much since then as I figure the easier my NLE is on my PC the longer my PC will last- no idea if that's true mind, it just seems like common sense.

[Dominic Deacon]"Both FCPX and PP seem to slow down very quickly there. More so than I'd expect. I wonder though how hard they are working your system to achieve these results? "

Yeah, but they slow down... differently. As I mumbled at one point, Pr seems to try to keep the UI fluid while playback degrades, X seems to do the opposite. Either way,this was A- not a scientific test, I was just curious and messing around, and B- It's a MacBook Air... lol

[Dominic Deacon]"I don't have a mac to try this on but have you ever monitored RAM, CPU usage and computer temperature when using these two?"

Not a bad idea, Maybe I'll try that. I do know that the fan came on much sooner running Pr, but don't know if it means anything.

In the end, I was just messing around. ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

I know you are talking about performance here, and it's impressive just as a demo.

What I am getting bad deja vu's about is, how much more fluid FCPX seems in making all these changes. How you can just drag a clip out to get it to play slower, making text changes in the viewer instead of a separate window opening up, etc. etc.
The whole business of the interface in Premiere Pro vs X.

I worked with Premiere, and I worked for 7 years on FCP7. after a year, a year and a half of almost working completely on X, it surprises me more then I thought it would.

Charlie, in PrPro you added a dust and scratches effect which I don't recall you adding in the FCPX demo. In any case Dust and Scratches in PrPro is not a GPU accelerated effect and it's probably the reason why the UI became unresponsive.

[David Cherniack]"Charlie, in PrPro you added a dust and scratches effect which I don't recall you adding in the FCPX demo. In any case Dust and Scratches in PrPro is not a GPU accelerated effect and it's probably the reason why the UI became unresponsive."

Thanks David, Was just trying to add something similar to the "Aged Film" effect in X, which adds dust and scratches as well as grain, jitter and some other stuff. As I said though, all things considered they both performed the same-ish. Pr playback degraded but the UI remained very responsive. FCP X seemed to play back smoother, but the UI updates went to hell. Is there a better analog in Pr to that effect in FCP? I honestly don't often use that stuff in either NLE.

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

No. Dust and Scratches would be the closest I guess to Aged Film. But as it's not commonly used there's not much incentive, I guess, for Adobe to GPU accelerate it. (Unlike with Apple and the prosumer user base of FCPX, :) NOTE SMILEY!!! Please don't loose dogs. I don't run fast any more.

I'm surprised that PrPro played back at all with Dust and Scratches effect as it's all done on the cpu which is already being strained mightily in your MacBook Air.

Truth be told such apples to oranges comparisons are rather meaningless...but entertaining

lol Well, I guess I'm a prosumer when I cut in X, and a real pro when I cut in Pr or something else. ;-) I've given up loosing dogs for the most part...

[David Cherniack]"Truth be told such apples to oranges comparisons are rather meaningless...but entertaining"

Yep. :-) Speaking of apples to oranges, I wish Apple would post the X on Mac Pro demo I saw... playing back 16 angles of mixed 4k, full res with some RT effects while driving a 4k projector. That was pretty cool...

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~

[Charlie Austin]"peaking of apples to oranges, I wish Apple would post the X on Mac Pro demo I saw... playing back 16 angles of mixed 4k, full res with some RT effects while driving a 4k projector. That was pretty cool."

[David Cherniack]"Well there may be a reason why they haven't let it loose. :)"

Other than the fact that they don't generally post demo's I can't think of a reason. It was quite real, I fiddled with the machine a little afterwards. In the interest of full disclosure, I can't say for certain it was playing full res, though I'm pretty sure it was.

[David Cherniack]"BTW did they ever say if the 4K streams in that demo were ProRes?"

If I recall correctly, some were, but not all. Again, going from faulty memory here, so don't quote me... ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

~ My FCPX Babbling blog ~
~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~